Hyper what?

How many of you have heard the financial term ‘Hypothecation’? Microsoft word hasn’t – the bug-prone program constantly tells me to check the spelling. If it’s also new to you, take note because you may be hearing a lot more about it and it could impact your portfolio.

Prior to the collapse of MF Global, it’s unlikely that many in the investment world would have ever heard of the terms; ‘hypothecation’ or ‘re-hypothecation. If you hold any dollars in an international brokerage / trading account, especially one where your funds are dispatched to somewhere in the UK, hypothecation may be the canary in the mine.

MF Global was allegedly using client-segregated monies for its own trading activities – a practice that is for obvious reasons, not practiced in most countries. The trading brought a 230-year old firm to its knees in a matter of weeks and resulted in the freezing of client funds. Funds thought to be ‘segregated’ and separate from the working capital of the firm, weren’t. But is MF Global an isolated case or is a practice that levers clients funds widely practiced and one that could undermine the financial system?

What the MF Global collapse has uncovered is that laws designed to prevent to access to ‘segregated’ accounts are being circumvented. Some firms may have also shifted accounts to countries where it is legal to access client’s funds for the firms trading activities. When you thought the only risk was that of your trade or investment selection going wrong, think again.

Hypothecation is, in simple terms, the practice of a borrower putting up collateral to secure a debt. An example of this is the typical purchase of a house. The buyer puts down a 20% deposit and borrows the remaining 80%. In this case the borrower has put up some cash and the house (at an agreed value) as collateral to cover the debt until the mortgage is paid off. Until such the borrower retains ownership of the collateral. Thus the collateral (both the deposit and the house) remains “hypothetically” controlled by the creditor, usually a bank. If the borrower can’t afford to meet agreed repayments (default), the creditor can take possession of the collateral and sell it to recover its assets. That’s Hypothecation – hypothetically the borrower owns the house, but in fact, they don’t until all loans are paid off. The same goes for securities purchased on margin.

With the basics out of the way we return to MF Global. Surprisingly hypothecation occurs when an investor puts their capital into a trading account to buy and sell securities such as CFD’s, Futures, Options, Commodities, etc.

And that should be that. Your money sits in your segregated trading account as collateral covering your positions – margined or not – until such as a time that you suffer an inability to pay back your debt to your broker (creditor) – if you ever do. And that is as we know it in Australia. MF Global here in Australia appears to have followed that procedure. But has it done so in the UK and the US? And how do others behave?

The practice and rules regulating hypothecation vary depending on the jurisdiction in which the trading account exists. In the US for example, the legal right for the creditor to ONLY take FULL ownership of the collateral if the debtor defaults is classified as a lien – a form of security interest granted over an item of property to secure the payment of a debt or performance of some other obligation.

In the UK however, these rules are more than a little different. In the US there are some breaks, re-hypothecation is capped at 140% of a client’s debit balance. In the UK however, there is no limit on the amount of a clients funds that can be re-hypothecated, except if the client has negotiated an agreement with their broker that includes a limit or prohibition. UK brokers can ‘REUSE’ collateral put up by clients to secure their own trading activities and borrowings through a little unknown process called Re-hypothecation! While you may think that your ‘segregated’ capital is being used only as collateral for your own trading activities and borrowings / margin, a firm such as MF Global who operates out of the UK, can re-use their clients collateral to back their own trades and borrowings! Are you thinking credit card on credit card, gearing on gearing, leverage on leverage? And how do excessively leveraged position usually work out? Not well generally.

In the industry it’s referred to as “fractional reserve” synthetic liquidity creation by Prime Brokers. The IMF in their 2010 paper The (sizable) Role of Rehypothecation in the Shadow Banking System” Manmohan Singh and James Aitken state: “Mathematically, the cumulative ‘collateral creation’ can be infinite in the United Kingdom”. They add that courtesy of no re-hypothecation haircuts one can achieve infinite “shadow” leverage and the creation of a large shadow banking system.

Gary Gorton in his 2009 paper “Haircuts” about systemic risk in the repo market (something I used to teach for the Securities Institiute of Australia) suggests that banks’ reliance on the repo market constitutes a systemic fragility which renders the entire banking system prone to runs: “Gorton predicts the crisis was not a one-off event and it could happen again”.

He also addresses the relationship between confidence and liquidity suggesting when “confidence” is lost, “liquidity dries up” and concludes the financial crisis was a manifestation of an age-old problem with private money creation, banking panics. ‘Haircuts’ are the functional equivalent of information arbitrage: “When all investors act in the run and the haircuts become high enough, the securitized banking system cannot finance itself and is forced to sell assets, driving down asset prices. The assets become information-sensitive; liquidity dries up. As with the panics of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the system is insolvent.” “Liquidity requires symmetric information, which is easiest to achieve when everyone is ignorant. This determines the design of many securities, including the design of debt and securitization.”

What Gorton says is that the increasing complexity of banks and the securities they issue is motivated by the need to obfuscate the masses and distract them from what is really occurring.

Let’s say a hedge fund (who is managing your money) puts up $100,000 collateral to support a leveraged position of $1,000,000. If the broker then re-hypothecates that $100,000 and uses this to support the same level of leverage, the firm is in a position where just $100,000 in collateral (not theirs) is supporting $2,000,000 in leveraged market positions.

A move of just 5% on $2,000,000 equates to $100,000 in profit and both you and your broker make $50,000 each. A move however of 5% against a $2,000,000 position can however wipe most of the collateral – and such moves are not uncommon today. While a single trade will unlikely bring down a broker’s diversified trading book, if all trades move in unison (remember US house prices were never expected to all decline at once), as was the case when MF Global traded European bonds, you can see how quickly everything can unravel.

And remember, while the broking firm enjoys all of the trading profits and fees, the clients bear the risk. If the broker loses, they file for bankruptcy, leaving clients holding an empty can. This appears to be what transpired at MF Global. It’s the ultimate privatization of profits and socialization of losses. And according to an increasingly vocal group of experts it could all happen again if a sovereign defaults.

And now you also have the reason why Central Banks around the world are applying a policy of ‘price stability’ or ‘price support’ in asset markets like the stock market – everyone is leveraged to the hilt.

It has been estimated that in 2007, re-hypothecation accounted 50% of the worlds Shadow banking system and the IMF estimated that US banks received $4 trillion of funding from the UK from re-hypothecation using just $1 trillion in clients funds, funds being levered several times over. In this light, don’t think for a moment that MF Global is alone in using client’s funds to trade and borrow for their own trading activities.
It appears in the current market environment that the first question you should ask is not whether or not your investment idea will work out correctly, it’s more a question of whether the money you put into your broker sponsored account will ever come back.

And now that re-hypothecation is exposed, I wonder how many assets have been double, tripled and quadruple-counted. An expose on this subject by Reuters about this subject following the collapse of MF Global, revealed that “Engaging in hyper-hypothecation have been Goldman Sachs ($28.17 billion re-hypothecated in 2011), Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (re-pledged $72 billion in client assets), Royal Bank of Canada (re-pledged $53.8 billion of $126.7 billion available for re-pledging), Oppenheimer Holdings ($15.3 million), Credit Suisse (CHF 332 billion), Knight Capital Group ($1.17 billion), Interactive Brokers ($14.5 billion), Wells Fargo ($19.6 billion), JP Morgan($546.2 billion) and Morgan Stanley ($410 billion).”

And if you are wondering what the implications are, it may not be what you think. Initially there will be the denials and then, if Prime Brokers have to recall all the stock they lent out, imagine the global short covering rally?

And meanwhile the Euro crisis related elimination of deficit spending could force banks into administration or liquidation, which in turn causes assets to be marked down to market and pressure on equities. We invest in interesting times…but don’t forget highest quality stocks at substantial discounts to intrinsic value.